Iraq Rape-Slay Case Hits Snags

Legal Infighting Delays Trial For Private Alleged To Be Mastermind Until April 2009

(AP)  They were convicted one after another - four U.S. soldiers who helped gang rape and kill a 14-year-old Iraqi girl in one of the war's worst atrocities.

In exchange for leniency, each struck deals to testify against a fifth man, a troubled former Army private who allegedly killed the girl's family and planted the idea of raping the teen.

But the case against Steven D. Green has dragged slowly forward in the 18 months since the allegations surfaced. It is a pace, military legal experts note, that bears stark contrast to swift prosecutions of nearly every other crime to come from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Green, 22, is accused of being a central figure in slaying the family in Mahmoudiya, a village about 20 miles south of Baghdad. He was charged in federal court because he was discharged from the Army for anti-social personality disorder before being accused of the crimes.

On Tuesday, his trial was set for April 13, 2009, in Paducah, Kentucky.

Defense attorneys and federal prosecutors in the case have fought each other on the reach of federal courts into military affairs, the access civilian attorneys have to classified military evidence, and, most recently, what constitutes enough time to prepare for trial.

Some legal experts say the delays and infighting suggest challenges ahead in trying the last chapter of what many regard as the worst atrocity committed by U.S. military personnel in Iraq.

"You've got some very smart people trying a type of case that they normally don't," said Charles Rose, a law professor at Stetson University and former deputy military judge advocate. "Federal criminal courts are designed for paper-driven cases. They don't do violations of the laws of war."

Unlike his co-accused, Green, 22, of Midland, Texas, is the only soldier charged in civilian court for the March 2006 slayings, where he faces a possible death sentence if convicted.

Green pleaded not guilty in November 2006 to charges of rape and murder.

Four Fort Campbell, Kentucky-based 101st Airborne Division soldiers have since been convicted for their roles in targeting the girl from a checkpoint near Mahmoudiya and helping rape and kill her. They were given sentences in courts-martial ranging from five to 110 years under agreements with prosecutors.

Two of the soldiers testified they took turns raping the girl while Green shot and killed her mother, father and younger sister. Green shot the girl in the head after raping her, they said. The girl's body was then set on fire with kerosene to destroy the evidence, according to previous testimony.

At the core of Green's trial is the law used to charge him in U.S. District Court. The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act allows prosecutors to try military personnel in federal court if they no longer are in the service and are charged for a crime punishable by at least a year in prison.

The law, which has been used rarely, dissolved Green's chances of receiving a sentence comparable to those of the other defendants if he is convicted, attorneys have argued. Each soldier was charged identically, but those convicted in the military have a chance for parole in 10 years no matter the sentence they received.

While legal experts say disparity in sentencing is not unusual, Green's attorneys have argued there is a fundamental issue of fairness that is lost by the government's insistence on trying Green outside of the reaches of the military.

A telephone message seeking comment was left Tuesday at Assistant U.S. District Attorney Marisa Ford's Louisville, Kentucky, office. Green's attorney, Patrick Bouldin, declined to comment Tuesday night.

Delays are expected in a federal death penalty case, where proceedings have lasted as long as three years, legal experts say.

But Gary Solis, a law professor at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York, remains baffled that prosecuting the Mahmoudiya slayings has lingered when so many other crimes in Iraq have come to a close.

Solis said trying Green in U.S. District Court undoubtedly reflects political pressure to ensure the most severe punishment for the crime's alleged ringleader.

[connapa]

The military can reinstate him as they can do with anyone discharged within a certain timeframe. Then, they can court-marital him. That would be quicker than what they are trying to do now.

[oldpilot954]

Better yet -- publicly hang everyone of those involve in the same neighborhood where it happened. It keeps me from having to worry about one of the creeps moving into my neighborhood and targeting my daughters or granddaughter and improves relations with the Iraqis too. Their crimes are inexcusable -- forget plea bargaining!

[klingon69]

The military can reinstate him as they can do with anyone discharged within a certain timeframe. Then, they can court-marital him. That would be quicker than what they are trying to do now.
Posted by connapa at 10:45 AM : Dec 19, 2007
They can only reinstate someone discharged under honorable conditions. Medical and less-than-honerable condition discharges carry special requirements prior to reinstating.

[meboard]

Just another good-ol boy from Texas... Bush will pardon him!

[fornicario]

Solis said trying Green in U.S. District Court undoubtedly reflects political pressure to ensure the most severe punishment for the crime''s alleged ringleader.

Yes, give this kid the works, while giving Halliburton a free pass for their rape. This kid must be a Democrat. No Republican soldier would have ever been charged, nor would Halliburton.

[antoniof123]

So the administration goes for the most harsh punishment yet lets the others off. That is the new Republican way what a bunch of scum they have become. Former Libertarian will be your worst nightmare you rat bastar ds.

[azcagirl]

Thank you oldpilot954! I totally agree with you!

[stevenga777]

Well I''m sure those Iraqies feel better we "liberated" them!
I say hang all 5 in public in the neighborhoos they committed this atrocity in to show the iraqis we are about justice and not about a family fued between the Bushs and the Saddam or about oil.

[samoan82]

I think Green need''s to surf the consequence''s because not all soldier are out their to kill innocent people and miss treat them like that.. We also have brother, sister, and husband''s out there that were praying and supporting in the fighting for PIECE
and yet these ignorant soldier enjoy''s themselves like that
It a shame upon the MILITARY title..not only them that are being accused, every personnel are in bad name''s because of this behaviors

[godseyesore-2009]

oldpilot954,azcagirl, stevenga777,
I totally, TOTALLY agree! What is wrong with this country''s justice system? Evidently, lawyers. "Justice" is illusion when it can be manipulated, bought, spun, etc.

[gunnerv1]

antoniof123 Go Pi*s up a rope, you have no idea of what your talking about until you have faced a Military Courts Martial. There are three levels of Military Courts Martial and one level of Non-Judical Punishment. 1. Special Courts Martial, 2. Summery Courts Martial and 3. General Courts Martial. Number 3. is by and far reserved for the "Gravest" of charges and can in fact "Award" the death penalty. The other four were all given General Courts Martial''s and were awarde punishments in accordance with their level''s of action in the charges brought against them. If you don''t know what your talking about, then shut the *** up. Former Chief Master at Arms of 5 US Navy Destroyers. (Been there, Seen that, Done that)

[hungry1968]

"Green, 22, is accused of being a central figure in slaying the family in Mahmoudiya, a village about 20 miles south of Baghdad. He was charged in federal court because he was discharged from the Army for anti-social personality disorder before being accused of the crimes. "



In no way am I trying to defend this scummbag, but why is someone from the military charged with murder in federal court, (as he should be), but the pieces of ***** from Blackwater walk away from 17 dead bodies free of any persecution? Weren''t we told that it was out of the federal court''s jurisdiction?

[hungry1968]

Just another good-ol boy from Texas... Bush will pardon him!

Posted by meboard at 11:26 AM : Dec 19, 2007


Nah - he doesn''t have enough money.

[hungry1968]

Posted by samoan82 at 12:38 PM : Dec 19, 2007


Good lord! Where did you learn to speak and spell?

Crawford (TX) Central High School?

[jowand]

Just another good-ol boy from Texas... Bush will pardon him!

Posted by meboard at 11:26 AM : Dec 19, 2007


Nah - he doesn''''t have enough money.
Posted by hungry1968 at 01:04 PM : Dec 19, 2007

King of Pardons is Bill Clinton.

[hungry1968]

King of Pardons is Bill Clinton.

Posted by jowand at 01:24 PM : Dec 19, 2007



How many days in jail did Scooter Libby serve for outing a CIA agent?

And the reason all of this controversy is going on regarding the destruction of the interrogation tapes is.... they don''t want the CIA agents identities to be leaked out!!!

What a hypocritical bunch of corrupt, conniving, lying, scummbags!! (And I refer to Bush supporters in the same manner...)

[neoconrcrazy]

onward Christian soldiers.....or is he jewish?

[stevex47]

Mission Accomplished King Bush

[rowdytexan2]

"Why has the media already forgotten the story of the Halliburton employee accused of rape?"

Because Cheney quashed it.

[superdem]

Anybody who brings this up hates America and hates our troops ! We don''t torture ! Sandy Berger stole documents ! Sandy Berger stole documents ! Nobody wants to see a woman president AGE !

Rush Limbaugh teaches his parrotheads to talk, and they endlessly - and stupidly - repeat his phrases. Excellence In Propaganda.

[feelfree1]

Here is a good article on on of the mass-murderous rampages of the subhuman, steroid addled, Blackwater terrorists-for-rent:

www.democracynow.org/2007/12/19/broadcast_exclusive_iraqi_witnesses_victims_describe

Also, another U.S. sponsored rent-a-terrorist group, CACI, is being sued by "256 prisoners held at prisons in Iraq" for their torue activities against these people.

www.democracynow.org/2007/12/19/military_contractor_caci_accused_of_widespread

PFC Green would have been an ideal asset to either of these terrorist networks.

[feelfree1]

If the two young Iraqi boys that came home to find their parents and family slaughtered, and their 14-year-old sister gang-raped and charred, decide to kill the brutal and illegal invaders of their country, can anyone blame them?

If the young girl who has the brains of her parents sprayed on her, after they are executed by trigger-happy U.S. soldiers at a checkpoint, seeks the extermination of the illegal invaders of her country and killers of her parents, can anyone blame her?

If the Iraqi victims of CACI torture chambers, innocent of any crime, seek to eliminate this subhuman scum from the face of the earth, could anyone blame them?

If anyone, anywhere, seeks to defend themselves against the amoral mass-murderers and terrorists of Blackwater, can anyone blame them?

Are we fighting the imaginary group, "al-Qaeda-in-Iraq", in Iraq, or could it be that the millions of maimed, raped, tortured, humiliated, soddomized, and/or displaced Iraqis, are defending themselves against the brutal and criminal invaders, and destroyers of their country?

[gunnerv1]

All of you people make me sick. You condemn over 750,000 Soldiers, Marines, Airmen and Sailors for the actions of 5 men. Disgusting, simply disgusting.

[gunnerv1]

FeelFree1 and they too will be blown away. Remember, if you are not in uniform and you are armed, in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, you are a Spy and can be shot on the spot (you might get a "Drum Head" Courts Martial if your lucky)

[feelfree1]

Gunnerv1,

Same goes for a lie-based, mass-murdering, torture prone illegal invader, eh Gomer? Does murdering and torturing women and children make you feel like a big man?

The people of Iraq obviously have every right to defend themselves.

As illegal invaders, our soldiers retain ZERO rights, and have only responsibilities, and our criminal effort has failed miserably to meet any of these obligations.

Your demented mindset is testimony as to why that is the case.

[feelfree1]

Re: "Remember, if you are not in uniform and you are armed, in accordance with the Geneva Conventions"

Remember "Gunnerv1", people in a country that is facing a brutal and illegal invasion, ALWAYS have the right to defend themselves, by whatever menas they deem necessary. They need not wear uniforms to do so.

Also, any coward defending the mass-murder, torture, plunder, etc., in Iraq and elsewhere, has no business citing the Geneva Conventions.

jowand wrote:

"King of Pardons is Bill Clinton."

Indeed - but let''s not forget that George Bush Snr liked to pardon convicted terrorists.

Can''t we just send Steven D. Green back to Iraq and let the Iraqis handle this?

Personally, that piece of scum deserves everything he gets.

[toolmangler-2009]

I agree that people have a right to defend their country. I also agree that if you take up arms against an invader that you Identify your chosen stance by wearing some form of Identification, (a certain hat, jacket, armband, uniform,) or anything that sets you apart from the "Non-Combatants". Failure to do so brands you as a spy/criminal and you are subject to being killed on sight as a ''war-criminal''. Otherwise, the offensive force might as well kill everyone in sight to keep from being shot in the back. Its called "take no prisoners"...

[feelfree1]

Re: "Otherwise, the offensive force might as well kill everyone in sight to keep from being shot in the back."

This appears to be the strategy.

"Failure to do so brands you as a spy/criminal and you are subject to being killed on sight as a ''war-criminal''"

Hardly. If the Blackwater goons showed up in your neigborhood, and began mudering, torturing, and raping your familiy, friends, and neighbors, would you first have a meeting to discuss the appropriate attire for the occasion, and wait for UPS to deliver your chosen "uniform" before you decided to resist them?

Would you be in violation of the Geneva Conventions if you started to defend yourselves before your uniforms arrived?

Besides that, illegal invaders, by definition, lack any standing to hide behind the rule of law in defense their behavior.

[feelfree1]

Is gang-raping and murdering children part of the Chevron "Human Energy" campaign?

[feelfree1]

In the Chevron "Human Energy" spirit, more women have come forward as rape victims of Halliburton.

"More Women Report *** Assaults in Iraq"

"WASHINGTON (AP) %u2014 A woman who claims she was raped by a fellow employee while working for a U.S. contractor in Iraq told House lawmakers Wednesday that her case is far from unique."

[toolmangler-2009]

Besides that, illegal invaders, by definition, lack any standing to hide behind the rule of law in defense their behavior.
Posted by FeelFree1 at 06:04 PM : Dec 19, 2007



Define ''illegal''

[toolmangler-2009]

I thought the winners got to write the laws?

[toolmangler-2009]

once a country/whatever declares war on you, they have notified you that, "the ownership of your country is in question," If they send ''soldiers'' to fight you then you must send soldiers to fight them, the only alternative is to declare "TOTAL WAR" and then its "Katy! bar the door!" This encompasses civilized war vs. Total War.

[feelfree1]

Re: "Define ''illegal''

Posted by ToolMangler

###

Fruad based, undeclared, in violation of the Nuremberg Charter and the U.N. Charter (hence- illegal under our own Constitution), rife with widespread torture, rape, and wreckless to intentional slaughter of civilians, and countless other atrocities.

In other words, lacking any basis under the rule of law.

[feelfree1]

The President has ZERO authority to declare war on anyone. Obviously a Resident does not either.

[toolmangler-2009]

Fruad based, undeclared, in violation of the Nuremberg Charter and the U.N. Charter (hence- illegal under our own Constitution), rife with widespread torture, rape, and wreckless to intentional slaughter of civilians, and countless other atrocities.
In other words, lacking any basis under the rule of law.
Posted by FeelFree1 at 07:52 PM : Dec 19, 2007



In other words, A "power" would have to issue a "If, Or, Then" statement to an ''offending'' party for it to be legal. As I recall the offending party here (Saddam) was asked and later told to leave office, he refused. He was asked, advised, told, warned, cajoled and warned again but still he refused, he was given an ''If'' you don''t leave ''Or'' surrender ''Then'' we will attack and force you out. he didn''t so Bushy_baby did. (see there, you made me say his name) , wash my mouth out with soap!!!

[greco99-2009]

Here''s the problem -- it they prosecute Steven Green it will mean they can prosecute the rapists and killers from Haliburton and Dyncorp.

Halliburton employees likely raped a co-worker (looks like 4 now), Dyncorp employees kept child *** slaves and the U.S. does nothing -- that''s is what justice means in Bush''s crazy world of selective immunity and garbled jurisdiction.

Look at the contradictions in these cases and it is clear why Bush and the Neo-Cons will be remembered as incompetant if not downright evil.

[toolmangler-2009]

Exactly two weeks after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, this argument was advanced in a lengthy memo sent to the White House by John C. Yoo, then a deputy assistant attorney general. %u201CThe President,%u201D Yoo wrote, %u201Cmay deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the states that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11%u2026.The Constitution confides in the President the authority, independent of any statute, to determine when a %u2018national emergency%u2019 caused by an attack on the United States exists.%u201D

And, exactly a year later, the Justice Department brought that sweeping argument to bear in the context of electronic eavesdropping to deal with foreign terrorist threats. In a legal brief, it claimed that %u201Cthe Constitution vests in the President inherent authority to conduct warrantless intelligence surveillance (electronic or otherwise) of foreign powers or their agents, and Congress cannot by statute extinguish that constitutional authority.%u201D

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/analysis-collision-course-on-inherent-power/

[feelfree1]

ToolMangler,

Re: "In other words, A "power" would have to issue a "If, Or, Then" statement to an ''''offending'''' party for it to be legal."

Nope. It needs to be in response to an eminent threat, or with the express consent of the U.N., with an accompaying U.N. Security Council Resolution authorizing the use of force.

Neither apply.

According to our Constitution, it also requires a declarationof war by our Congress- the ONLY ones with authority in matters of war.

[greco99-2009]

Here''''s the problem -- it they prosecute Steven Green it will mean they can prosecute the rapists and killers from Haliburton and Dyncorp.

Steven Green was discharges and is *not* being prosecuted under UCMJ (military) justice.

Halliburton employees likely raped a co-worker (looks like 4 now), Dyncorp employees kept child *** slaves and the U.S. does nothing -- that''''s is what justice means in Bush''''s crazy world of selective immunity and garbled jurisdiction.


Steven Green will walk free. He will be able to party with your daughter. Just like the Hailburton and Dyncorp rapists he falls into the loophole. I bet they joke about it - after all, boys will be boys.

Look at the contradictions in these cases and it is clear why Bush and the Neo-Cons will be remembered as incompetant if not downright evil.

Wait until people see Redacted and realize that Steven Green will walk free...

[greco99-2009]

Here''s the problem -- it they prosecute Steven Green it will mean they can prosecute the rapists and killers from Haliburton and Dyncorp.

Steven Green was discharged and is *not* being prosecuted under UCMJ (military) justice.

Steven Green now falls into one of the many Bush ''legal loopholes''.

Halliburton employees likely raped a co-worker (looks like 4 now), Dyncorp employees kept child *** slaves and the U.S. does nothing -- that''''''''s is what justice means in Bush''''''''s crazy world of selective immunity and garbled jurisdiction.

Haliburton and Dyncorp rapists and killers fall into the same loophole as Steven Green.

Steven Green will walk free. He will be able to party with your daughter. Just like the Hailburton and Dyncorp rapists, he falls into the loophole. I bet they joke about it - after all, boys will be boys.

Or, maybe they will detain him indefinately without charges (at least until past the next election I''m sure).

Look at the contradictions in these cases and it is clear why Bush and the Neo-Cons will be remembered as incompetant if not downright evil.

Wait until people see the movie Redacted about the rape and killing of a 14 year old girl in front of her family...and then realize that Steven Green will walk free...

With the law as it is .. there is no way he will even be convicted of being a *** offender. And, if they do find a way to prosecute him...I don''t see why it does not apply to everyone else as well...

[greco99-2009]

Here''s the problem -- it they prosecute Steven Green it will mean they can prosecute the rapists and killers from Haliburton and Dyncorp.

Steven Green was discharged from the Army, and is *not* being prosecuted under UCMJ (military) justice.
He now falls into a phony ''legal loophole'' created by Bush and the Neocons.

Halliburton employees likely raped a co-worker (or 4), Dyncorp employees kept child s.x slaves, and the U.S. does nothing -- that''s what justice means in Bush''s world of selective immunity and garbled jurisdiction.

The alleged Haliburton rapists and killers (and, illegal arms sellers) fall into the same loophole as Steven Green, to preserve the loophole its impossible to prosecute him.

Steven Green will walk free. Just like Hailburton rapists, he falls into the loophole. They will be able to party with your daughter, and there''s nothing anyone can do.

Or, maybe they will just detain him indefinately (or, at least past next election).

Look at the contradictions in these cases and its clear why Bush and the Neo-Cons will be remembered as incompetant if not downright evil.

Would it be legal for someone to shoot Cheney in the loophole zone?

If they do find a way to prosecute Green...the law will apply to everyone who committed crimes in Iraq...

It is impossible to investigate these companies in their lawless mideast havens.

Wait until people see the movie Redacted about the rape of a 14 year old...and realize Steven Green will walk free...

[toolmangler-2009]

Controversy regarding U.S. declarations of war
Those who oppose waging war without declaration point to Article I of the Constitution, which reads The Congress shall have the power to declare war.

In the case of smaller conflicts not requiring large commitments of manpower and money, many Americans believe that precedents have already been set for acting without the need for declarations of war. In the case of major conflicts, however, debate is centered around the aforesaid words of the United States Constitution.

Those who believe that formal declarations of war are not necessary, argue that since the Constitution expressly prohibits the states from engaging in war without consent of Congress unless actually invaded or in imminent danger, that if a similar prohibition had been intended for the President, then such words would have also been written to effect it. They also point to the military connotations of the phrases engaging in war (used in the aforesaid prohibition) and levying war (used in the definition of treason) as opposed to the diplomatic connotations of the phrase declare war. Further historical arguments point to the decisions to not issue a formal declaration of war preceding either the Civil War or the Revolutionary War, the latter decision being made by a Continental Congress comprising a number of those who went on to write the Constitution. Moreover, the term "Declaration of War" is not, in fact, mentioned by the US Constitution.

[toolmangler-2009]

Instead the Constitution says "Congress shall have the power to ... declare War, ..." without defining the form such declarations will take. Therefore, many have argued congressionally passed authorizations to use military force are "Declarations of War."

There are also diplomatic reasons for a dislike of "declaring war" on a country, as it can often be perceived as holding an entire nation responsible for the actions of a few of its citizens. In the case of the most recent public opposition, those who support such actions have noted that, in the case of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, there was no ''target'' for a legal declaration of war, rather political groups or individuals. On the other hand, many argue that since an invading army seeks to, or at least actually does, occupy and cause havoc to an entire target country and its population (as opposed to the target political groups or individuals), the aforementioned justifications are tenuous at best.

[toolmangler-2009]

Many against formal declarations of war also argue that such declarations "acknowledge sovereignty" of a target government often contended by the United States to be an illegitimate regime. By declaring war, the United States must acknowledge diplomatically that the target of hostilities are, in fact, the recognized leaders of the country with which the war is declared, therefore often weakening the argument for "liberating" a people of the said country from a tyrannical or illegitimate regime. However, the historical record disagrees somewhat on this point. The Barbary Coast War was clearly waged against a political entity not regarded as the legitimate government of its nation of operation; the Border War, quietly declared as it was, was waged against a single person, Pancho Villa. Needless to say, in both instances many hundreds if not thousands of people neither belonging to a political entity nor being Pancho Villa also died in the event. (It should be noted that in both of the above-cited cases, Congress did not actually declare war.) Furthermore, it is sometimes argued that there is nothing particularly wrong with acknowledging diplomatically that a target government is actually in power, be it through legitimate means or not

[greco99-2009]

Here''''s the problem -- it they prosecute Steven Green it will mean they can prosecute the rapists and killers from Haliburton and Dyncorp.

Steven Green was discharged from the Army, and is *not* being prosecuted under UCMJ (military) justice.
He now falls into a phony ''''legal loophole'''' created by Bush and the Neocons.

Just consider the choice of law problem, which ''rules of evidence'' apply. Under phone Bush law we get the unique result that *no* rules of evidence applys -- because allowing either U.S. or Iraqi law has profound results for past illegal acts and ongoing investigations.

The alleged Haliburton rapists and killers (and, illegal arms sellers) fall into the same loophole as Steven Green, to preserve the loophole its impossible to prosecute him.

Steven Green will walk free. Just like Hailburton rapists, he falls into the loophole. They will be able to party with your daughter, and there''''s nothing anyone can do.

Look at the contradictions in these cases and its clear why Bush and the Neo-Cons will be remembered as incompetant if not downright evil.

Would it be legal for someone to shoot Cheney in the loophole zone?

If they do find a way to prosecute Green...the law will apply to everyone who committed crimes in Iraq...

Wait until people see the movie Redacted about the rape of a 14 year old...and realize Steven Green will walk free...

[toolmangler-2009]

A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation, and one or more others. For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War," however, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation text must have to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term. Many have postulated "Declaration(s) of War" must contain that phrase as or within the title. Many oppose that reasoning. The postulate has not been tested in court; however, this article will use the term "formal Declaration of War" to mean Congressional legislation that uses the phrase "Declaration of War" in the title.

Despite the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war, in practice, formal Declarations of War have occurred only upon prior request by the President.

After World War II, Congress voluntarily limited its use of the power to declare war to issuing authorizations of force. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (Pub.L. 93-148) limits the power of the President to wage war without the approval of the Congress. The United States of America has formally declared war against foreign nations five separate times.

[greco99-2009]

Here''s the problem -- if they prosecute Steven Green it means they can prosecute rapists and killers from Haliburton and Dyncorp.

Steven Green was discharged from the Army, and is *not* being prosecuted under UCMJ (military) law. He now falls into a phony ''legal loophole'' created by Bush and the Neocons.

Just consider the choice of law issue: which ''rules of evidence'' apply? Under phony Bush law, we get the result that *no* rules of evidence apply -- because allowing either U.S. or Iraqi law enables prosecution of past illegal acts and ongoing investigations.

It is impossible to investigate these companies in their lawless mideast havens. That is why they moved out of the U.S. (and to avoid taxes).

The alleged Haliburton rapists and killers (and, illegal arms sellers) fall into the same loophole as Steven Green, to preserve the loophole its impossible to prosecute him.

Steven Green will walk free. Just like Helliburton rapists, he falls into the loophole. They will be able to party with your daughter, and there''s nothing anyone can do.

Look at the contradictions in these cases and its clear why Bush and the Neo-Cons will be remembered as incompetant if not downright evil.

Would it be legal for someone to shoot Cheney in the loophole zone?

If they do find a way to prosecute Green...the law will apply to everyone who committed crimes in Iraq.

Wait until people see the movie Redacted about this case...and realize Steven Green will walk free.